Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
antigonejournal.com
antigonejournal.com
The media drives a lot of this with the format of their shows/political debates. I'm sure these sound bytes are better for ratings, but they are poor for getting to the bottom of a political platform and how that's really best for the general population.
I only developed a more informed sense to follow the political sphere like five years ago or so. This is so true, the media and their need for quotes makes so many debates into a farce. Politicians seem like being in front of a judge instead of a truth-seeking interviewer. Not that politicians are overly known for truth-seeking but there is a certain line between for a reporter being investigative and sensational.
Socrates was a notorious weirdo, a bit like the Richard Stallman of Athens.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/
If more people had that kind of response and mindset, maybe we could get back to solving problems instead of the constant tit for tat tribalism that is in the process of destroying us.
I don't mean to sound like a dick here. But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm.
1000000% agreed
And it is not because I have complications, I just don't feel like it.
Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of misinformation they spread. Starting with "masks don't work" and "closing travel is racist" and "the possibility of a lab leak is a crazy conspiracy theory". Big tech actually banned people for that and yet still think they should be the gatekeepers? Where is the humility? That's an environment not unlike that of Gallio. Which the church and priests who assert themselves as the source of truth while expelling the heretics.
I am not saying censorship is answer necessary, but I am saying we should stop pretending the discussion has anything to do with open dialog or "adding information".
When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.
The controversy is from the corporate media and other gatekeepers now attacking him. He's the tip of the spear that is threatening their business model and control over the narrative. It's not so much about Joe as it's about elite gatekeepers vs independent media. The same fight is being waged against Substack. They just lack this kind of central figure to point at and demonize.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/06/joe-rogan-spotif...
I think its more controversial now only because people have leverage over Spotify - when he self hosted his show there really wasn't a way to protest. You could boycott the advertisers I guess but I don't think MeUndies and Butcher Box would have cared.
1. A disclaimer at the beginning of the video will instruct people to consult their physician and provide a warning that the views expressed are "against the current consensus of experts."
2. When a controversial expert is interviewed, the following videos will feature experts who hold the mainstream viewpoint, serving to counterbalance the claims of a small minority.
Time will tell if this happens, but I find the above points far more meaningful than any apology.
Did you watch the posted ten minute video? Have you watched any of his podcasts in full? He explains why he has those guests on and concedes with some gratitude the idea that he ought to have more guests on that can communicate the opposing views, especially soon after a controversial guest.
The alleged harm he’s perpetrating in having conversations is way less dangerous than a full-steam-ahead into uncritical, contrived, and corrupt thought control from established institutions and governments.
This is called the Halo effect: someone who is good in one way is surely good in all ways.
If Terence Tao posted on his blog tomorrow that he has video proof that Hillary Clinton is a secret lizard person, I would certainly be shocked, and I might even read what he has to say, but I would still immediately classify him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (one who espouses a nutty conspiracy theory). It wouldn't really diminish everything else he's done, and I would view it as an incredibly sad case of an otherwise amazing brain getting infected by a particularly virulent mind-virus.
Say Joe Rogan split his segment into two halves, and the first half was devoted to someone arguing that the 14th century was invented by the Illuminati in order to hide the fact that Finland doesn't really exist and is just a cover to hide the fact that Russian fishermen discovered aliens there, who took their bodies and are now infiltrating society, etc. etc. The second half was devoted to an actual historian saying "um, no, that's really ridiculous for many reasons". Would you call that fair and balanced? Is that a good point-counterpoint? Hell no. It's the classic false equivalency, fake-centrist B.S. that is used so often to promote crazy and dangerous ideas.
The truth is subtle, nuanced, and complex. It takes long, in-depth study to understand. It's not always obvious to a layperson who is "debunking" whom. Just as we don't automatically expect a beautiful or useful crop to outcompete noxious weeds just because we like them better, we should not expect the truth to outcompete crazy in 20-minute podcast segments. Crazy is much better at spreading into brains than the truth, because that's exactly the selection pressure that led the crazy to evolve in the first place. True ideas don't evolve by being extremely good at sticking in your brain; they evolve when humans sit down and realize that that's not the appropriate arena for them.
No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it.
Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true.
I think you may have meant to put "This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it" in quotes -- to show that it might be the attitude of a conspiracy theorist towards efforts to hide the conspiracy.
Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record, I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that the theory of climate change is a fraud because: "Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you've reduced the variables -- which are everything -- to that set. But how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything?"[1]
> By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it.
It's not clear to me if you personally believe this statement or if it's a reference to irrational conspiratorial thinking. But we deny platforms all the time. You won't find Holocaust deniers getting equal time in a history textbook. You similarly won't find flat Earthers teaching geology at an accredited university. And when Joe Rogan got paid $100 million for having a popular podcast, he was incentivized to appeal to an increasingly irrational listener base, regardless of what the truth was.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/1...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-...
Also Jordan is being mischaracterized somewhat. You have to watch the whole explanation and ignore repackaged soundbites. He was (inartfully and perhaps incorrectly) challenging the accuracy of predictive models, which is a fair thing to do. It's not the end of the world. He can challenge it and others can present the counter argument.
Plus it's important to recognize that he's on the side of the environment. He argues (and I agree with him) that the best way to improve the environment is to bring people out of poverty, which enables people to think and strategize over longer time frames, not being so focused on their next meal or paying the bills. I believe he is correct about this larger point.
Hearing Peterson directly say something non-sensical like that is an incredibly effective way to convince reasonable people that he is wrong. Much more effective than any attempt to cancel or silence him.
Now A gets 1% of the time and crazy gets 99% of the time. Decide for yourself what's true!
I don't agree that such a mindset would help accomplish much.
Ergo, your obedient unquestioning good citizen mentality is far less progressive & beneficial than you think it is.
Epistemic humility is more discussed for signalling purposes than actually practiced.
The Republic is a particularly notable example of this kind of thing:
Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your refusal.
I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action, etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the opposite.
(on the other hand there are certainly debates I am tired of, amd frequently ponder how to handle people / situations that bring same tired arguments I've seen rehashed, and usually debunked, myriad times before. But that's not the same as morally unacceptable that's just me being lazy and or having limited time and energy on this earth :)
An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where:
1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies
2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking
3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments.
A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because:
1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome,
2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.
Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a good reason?
Following your example, you've reduced pollution, but now millions of people who work in the gasoline supply chain have lost jobs. These people get addicted to drugs, increase crime, and now you can't leave your house, but you do have clean air.
A logical debate without propaganda might have taken that into account.
I'm surprised that people here do not understand this point. Here some by-the-book examples that are used in ethics 101:
"what is the best way to kill grandma?" "what is a reasonable price to buy a slave?"
If you find murder or slavery immoral you are simply unable to debate on this questions because they imply acceptance of the premise.
You can, of course, express your disagreement on the whole debate.
> I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo
This has nothing to do with a taboo. It's a completely different thing.
I can debate the best way to kill grandma; I will even find it intellectually stimulating; heck, I just spent a few minutes now that you brought it up pondering that (it's the whole "don't think of pink Elephant" schtick:); without in any way implying acceptance of the premise, condoning the action, or considering actually doing it. Does your brain work different? Can you disentangle a concept and idea from action and emotion? I don't feel you're making your point persuasively, or the choice of phrasing may be ambiguous.
> But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion
This applies to flat earth theory believers as well. If they are unable to refute the reasons for the sphere theory, they have no ground for preferring either theory.
There's also the part "where he must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest" and I have a hard time imagining that most conspiracy theorists actually believe their theories -- in my experience, most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them; the need to believe is stronger than the actual belief. But that viewpoint is exactly what Socrates was denouncing ;)
The trend I've noticed is the theories or beliefs are being attached to one's own identity. Once engrained, it's hard to ever openly view other opposing beliefs.
This is trivially answered in the negative. Arguing for sport is done all the time, and holding a "Devil's advocate" position should be done routinely to test the strength one's own arguments.
As the Litany of Tarski goes: “If the Earth is flat, I desire to believe the Earth is flat…” etc.
(Though, I will admit that it gets boring later when you’ve heard all the arguments and rebuttals.)
If only Socrates were alive to have someone "well, actually..." him on the internet.